Judgment

P.B.SAWANT, J.

(1) THIS appeal is directed against an interim order of the High court by which the appellant is injuncted from using the trade mark MICROTEL, the logo M and the carton for manufacturing and selling his products which consist of electrical and electronic apparatus, instruments, TV boosters and TV tuners.

(2) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides. We also examined the trade marks and logos as well as the cartons used by both the parties for selling their respective products. We also examined the relevant authorities on the subject, cited by the learned counsel.

(3) THE undisputed facts are that both the respondent-plaintiff as well as the appellant-defendant manufacture and sell various electrical and electronic goods, cable TV, aerial boosters, solid state boosters etc. The appellant was one of the partners of the firm, viz., M/s Micronix India along with the respondent- plaintiff. The firm was manufacturing and selling the said electrical and electronic products, apparatus and instruments etc. since 21-9-1977. The said firm had a registered trade mark, viz., MICRONIX and logo IM I being shown in the well of M and both letters being in black and white. The trade mark was also in black and white colours. The partnership was dissolved on 14-2-1992 by a consent order filed in Suit No. 494 of 1991 instituted in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi. Under the terms of the compromise the said trade mark was allotted to the respondent-plaintiff. Thereafter, the appellant- defendant started his own business of manufacturing more or less the same products, in the name and style of M/s Microtelmatix with the trade name MICROTEL. He took simple M as his logo with the letter and background designed completely differently. Both the logo M and the trade name MICROTEL were in colour, viz., blue and red respectively.

(4) THE respondent-plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit and sought for injunction against the use of the trade name MICROTEL, the logo M and the packaging carton. The learned Single Judge granted the injunction and the Division Bench dismissed summarily the appeal filed against the same. Hence the present appeal by special leave.

(5) AT this stage, we are concerned only with the question as to whether the High Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction in granting interim injunction restraining the appellant from using his trade name, logo and the carton. Therefore, the finding recorded and the observations made herein have to be confined to the present proceedings. The suit is still pending and final conclusions will have to be arrived at after perusal of the evidence produced by both sides.

(6) THERE are two things which impress us. Firstly, the appellant is not manufacturing any one product such as the boosters, which has been mainly taken into consideration by the High Court. He is producing various electrical and electronic apparatus in many of which micro-chip technology is used. Even the boosters which he manufactures and sells are of two types, viz., transistorised boosters and integrated circuit boosters whereas the respondent- plaintiff manufactures aerial boosters only of the first type. Thus micro-chip technology being the base of many of the products, the word micro has much relevance in describing the products. Further, the word micro being descriptive of the micro technology used for production of many electronic goods which daily come to the market, no one can claim monopoly over the use of the said word. Anyone producing any product with the use of micro-chip technology would be justified in using the said word as a prefix to his trade name. What is further, those who are familiar with the use of electronic goods know fully well and are not likely to be misguided or confused merely by, the prefix micro in the trade name. Once, therefore, it is held that the word micro is a common or general name descriptive of the produc